Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:17:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0f7c85384c92000477f456c8c2ae30157e7956ac@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:17:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938152"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3442
Lines: 48

On 7/20/24 5:06 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
> 
>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt this is
>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either aborts the
>>>>>> simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort the
>>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must abort
>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
> You missed a couple details:
> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
> simulator halt on their own.
> 
>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and
>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt
>>>>> of its own.
>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
> Pretty much.
>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
>>> need to.
>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist aborts
>> its simulation.
> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
> 

No, he includes the non-decider version of HHH that never aborts, he 
needs that so he can lie that the DDD that calls that HHH and thus never 
halts and needs to be aborted is the same input as given to all the ones 
that do aborts.

Of course, that only works if the input that describes DDD does't 
include the code for HHH (or the input is diffferent) but then it fails 
to actually be a description of the input PROGRAM, or the input just 
isn't a program and he is just lying about what he is doing.

His logic is based on a lying shell game where everything has just 
slightly fuzzy definitions so he can change things behind the scenes as 
he makes his various claims.

Just like his "correct simulation" definition.